Ex-Novell CEO praises FreeBSD 114
There are a number of interesting things to take from this article. It's unsurprising that an ex-Novell CEO does not want to use MS software after the way Novell were treated by them, it is mildly surprising that he hasn't chosen a Novell, or other 'industry standard' solution.
Encanto's choice of FreeBSD over Linux is also interesting. Naturally, we all know that FreeBSD is the best choice (heh heh heh :-)), but Linux (or Solaris) would be the anti-MS knee jerk choice. Using FreeBSD suggests that they've actually investigated the different OS choices open to them, and chosen one on merit -- or that the first SA they hired preferred FreeBSD over Linux.
As ever, the media have got the licensing issues wrong. One of the key things about the BSD license is that you don't have to contribute enhancements back to the original codebase if you don't want to -- of course, that doesn't stop many companies from doing so anyway, because it's better business sense in the long run.
Having looked at the Encanto web site, and the products they're selling, the license may very well be the key issue. They sell network appliances -- plug and play web servers, that sort of thing, and the ability to make proprietry changes to the code base to support their product (and enhance their product's value) without having to disclose those changes is probably key to their business plan.
This is quite similar to the approach taken by Whistle and their Interjet devices. Whistle have been the classic example of a company which has contributed code back, even though the license doesn't force them to -- typically 6 to 12 months after they've deployed it in their product, and reaped the commercial benefit. This lets them recoup their development costs plus profit, and lets the rest of the community benefit from (and extend and support) the code later on.
Finally, CBS's phrase, "so-called open-source software" should get them a stiff letter from ESR...
Actually (Score:1)
Matt
Nice article but... (Score:1)
Its Nice that Bill Frankenburg believes this (Score:1)
"Free BSD is a particular flavor of the Unix operating system. It does an exceptionally good job. The operating system is distributed for free. Those that write enhancements to it are required to make those available to everyone."
All you have to do is provide the base YOU used, you don't HAVE to give back to the community. But, this desire to give back is what OpenSource is all about, now isn't it?
i'm seeing weiners (Score:1)
Stiff letter? (Score:2)
And that's no reflection on ESR, either. The media really should concentrate on ACCURATE reporting, and leave pulp fiction to paperback writers.
Getting back to the OS used, for a moment, I'm also finding it interesting that they went the FreeBSD route. Of course, the best OS depends on the tasks they want to do. The best hammer will never make for a usable chisel, and both make for horrible screwdrivers. The fact that they chose FreeBSD over Linux, OpenBSD and NetBSD says either something about the attitudes involved OR the needs.
Two thoughts... (Score:1)
I did notice, however, that the CBS reporter posed this question about BSD, however: "That's a Linux-like piece of software, right?" Heck, I'm a Linux user, and *I'm* offended.
I like (Score:3)
Whistle could keep their code to themselves -- certainly a number of companies have done that when it comes to BSD-style licenses. Still, they gave it back to the community. The only stipulation was that the community had to wait a little while. I have no problem waiting 6 months (or even a year) to use a companies add-ons. If they're not useful after a year, then they probably weren't that important to begin with.
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
It's nice (Score:1)
This looks like the old windows "Hot Dog Stand" color scheme. You know, the one alleged to cause psychotic fits...
this article has nothing to do with freebsd (Score:1)
Re:i'm seeing weiners (Score:2)
WHERE'S MY RELISH!!!?!?!
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
Re:Why is this red? (Score:2)
It's most likely because someone's experimenting with colour in the Slash code, and it's colourising all the stories.
no microsoft products.. but... (Score:1)
I actually kinda like the red... (Score:1)
On frontpage? (Score:2)
Re:i'm seeing weiners (Score:2)
Oh Joy, back in windows 3.1 land. (Score:1)
Not using Microsoft? (Score:2)
"www.encanto.com is running Microsoft-IIS/3.0 on NT4 or Windows 98"
So, what does that tell us? Just a marketing effort trying to jump on the bash-Microsoft bandwagon, I'd say.
Re:New Colours (off topic) (Score:3)
I love the new colors!
PS Why are you still using Middle English? Just kidding!
Pro BSD article? (Score:1)
Why do you even bother pretending that the reason this was posted was because it was about BSD? It's pretty obvious that this article is here because it's a typical Slashdot anti-Microsoft article. Let's have a little credibility, please.
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
Cool! (Score:1)
(rant) WHY DO PEOPLE THINK THAT POSTING "FIRST POST" IS SO DAMN COOL WHEN IN REALITY IT JUST MAKES THEM LOOK LIKE MORONS BECAUSE THEY'RE ADDING JACK TO THE CONVERSATION?? (/rant)
Okay, anyway, I think this is a great decision on Frankenberg's part. For him to go out and pick FreeBSD from all of his available choices says a lot for his character. He COULD have picked Novell because of past relations - he COULD have picked Linux to smack Microsoft upside the head - but he didn't want to play politics with companies - he just wanted what was best for his company and their needs. Also, FreeBSD IS awfully flexible, so if a minor change is needed to customize something to fit them better, then it's just a matter of fixing the code.
I find it highly respectable to see a man who analyzes what he needs and picks the best tool to fulfill those needs without taking into consideration what other people or companies are going to think. It's his dream - let him make it happen with the tools of his choice.
Sponsored by Novell... (Score:1)
Browser technology halted? (Score:1)
What about Mozilla? It seems to me that Mozilla will help us recover from the damage done by Microsoft.
Re:Stiff letter? (Score:1)
All these funky colors... (Score:1)
LOL, that's classic, but it gets better (Score:2)
Even better, one of this company's main products is their own Web Server, and they're still using IIS. Ahhh comedy, thy name is Slashdot! ;-)
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
Re:BSD camp should quit fragmenting *nix & back Li (Score:1)
>BSD is a clear case of stubborn pride and "not invented here" syndrome.
Perhaps its EVEN simpler, that the BSD licence is more to the liking of developers who want to protect THIER rights to do what they want with their code, as opposed to the rights of the sourcecode to be free. (See the viral nature of GPL debates for further info)
>splitting 3rd party developers' tasks
Perhaps if vendors supported ALL the forms of Linux, *INCLUDING* Linux emulation under SCO/Solaris/BSD, there would not be this 'splitting' you speak of, but provide no evidence of.
>start working together, united, in building a better OS
In the same way the number of Linux distros exceed 100? (107 was a number posted on
>Only after we all make peace
Why don't YOU start....and stop posting flamebait, ya troll? Why don't *YOU* ask vendors to write code that runs with *ALL* the Linux implementations, INCLUDING SCO, Solaris AND BSD???
No. (Score:2)
Linux is under the GPL. We hate the GPL.
Linux is technically inferior to BSD. Linux is an SVR4 clone. It has a poor development model. Just a few reasons why this will never happen.
Furthermore, BSD isn't fragmenting the UNIX community, Linux is. BSD was in widespread usage before Linux. The real UNIX fragmentation problem is the absurd number of Linux distros, which, despite what some Linux folk say, have very significant differences. Also, we're not 'splitting tasks'. Hardly anyone develops specifically for BSD, in fact, we suggest that they develop for Linux, since we can run the binaries natively, and port the source fairly easily.
I'm really getting sick of the Linux mentality that we need a gleaming, one world OS. The world needs different OSes, because every OS sucks at certain things, and they're always going to. The Open Source movement is about MORE decisions, not less, and the more choices we have, the better.
-lx
Re:All these funky colors... (Score:1)
There !
What's so bad about fragmentation? (Score:1)
There's a cliche that comes to mind... Don't keep all your eggs in one basket. I like to use it when promoting colonization of other planets, but I think it applies here as well. I think it also applies to the various Linux distributions, which some people find so troubling. Why should I have to run Redhat (for example) if Slackware appeals more to me?
Re:BSD camp should quit fragmenting *nix & back Li (Score:1)
BSD is hippie counterculture?
I wouldn't say the BSD has a "not invented here" syndrome either.
Maybe you should do some reading.
BSD.org [bsd.org]
FreeBSD [freebsd.org]
OpenBSD [openbsd.org]
NetBSD [netbsd.org]
coors (Score:1)
Did anyone notice the shift? (Score:1)
Re:On frontpage? (Score:1)
For those interested in other mentions regarding FreeBSD in the press, you can find pointers at http://www.freebsd.org/news/press.html [freebsd.org].
PS: This color scheme is icky.
Re:Why is this red? (Score:1)
Re:BSD camp should quit fragmenting *nix & back Li (Score:1)
Demon Colors?? (Score:2)
But if
Re:BSD camp should quit fragmenting *nix & back Li (Score:1)
Apple will shaft you as a developer.
Ask:
Apple ][ forever believers
Newton Developers
OpenDoc
CHiRP/PREP, the Clone makers
And the NeXT developers who were told:
YellowBox was the new platform of choice (Then why Carbon?)
Intel version of Rhapsody
Ask consumers of Apple products if they feel shafted
Ask:
The Brittish if they feel Apple has treated them well.
The buyers of the 500/450/400 Mhz machines.
Clone buyers.
PPC Owners who were supposed to have Rhapsody, as per WWDC 1997.
Newton owners with the fatal -10061 bug
Apple
And on and on. Apple burns people like Microsoft. The only difference is you can live fat while being burned by Microsoft.
Onto Mac OS X....
Mac OS X has *ONE* big hurdle. NetInfo. Everyting is linked to NetInfo, as so you have to either re-compile common tools to de-netinfo things, add to tools NetInfo hooks, OR make double entries.
Your basic compile-and-go-model that we are now used to doesn't happen with Mac OS X because of NetInfo. If you need to touch the user info...you can't just compile and go.
Calm down about the colors! (Score:1)
It's all part of the show :-)
As to the "Not news-worthy news": umm...notice how this article was on the front page? And how not all Ask Slashdot/Slashdot Radio/Apache/Your Rights Online articles make it to the front page either? It's a fact of life: not everything can make it to the front page, this is a way for the articles to make it for those who are interested in it. If you want "freak little group," consider taco hell! Now that's freaky (and I love it).
*shrug* (Score:3)
Novell, netscape, and any number of other companies got beat up by the bully, Microsoft. Now that the bully is falling down, the executives are flexing their ego's and trying to get their "self-esteem" back. Other than the fact that choosing an open-source OS is a Good Thing, this is nothing more than ego flexing.
Re:No. (Score:2)
Re:Why is this red? (Score:2)
Re:I like (Score:1)
-sw
Re:Pro BSD article? (Score:1)
Why do you even bother pretending that the reason this was posted was because it was about BSD?
Because that's the reason I posted it. My bias is quite definitely BSD, :-), and you'll note that in the extended commentary I pretty much ignore the MS bashing, concentrating on why they choose FreeBSD over the other possible contenders, which, IMHO, is a more interesting sideline to explore. So far, it's what everyone else has been exploring as well (without degenerating in to a BSD vs. GPL namecalling-fest, which is nice -- perhaps the usual suspects didn't have the smarts to realise that this might be a GPL issue after all).
You'll read what you want to read. If you expect Slashdot to post only anti-MS articles then you'll try and see anti-MS in every article posted.
N
PS: About the colours. Shocked the hell out of me as well. I thought I'd screwed something up bigtime :-)
Re:Browser technology halted? (Score:3)
Read the FOF if you must know. Microsoft threatened to cut off licensing to OEM's who preloaded NN. They paid OEM's to break their contracts with Netscape. They threatened IAP's who distributed NN. They paid IAP's significantly to not distribute Netscape, and only promote IE.
Basically, they bought, bribed, and buried all Netscape's distribution channels. Without OEM's and IAP's licensing Netscape's browser, Netscape didn't have the cash to continue to innovate. That's why 4.7 is a lot worse then IE 5. Remember 4.x is basically 2-3 year old technology now. That's like comparing a '97 model Chevy to a 2000 model Ford. And again, why wasn't Netscape able to keep innovating? Because Microsoft cut off their ability to compete, and stifled their freedom of innovation.
Consider it another way. Before the internet became a big shopping mall, publishers had to sell their books through stores. Imagine if you were publishing books on computers and I was. But books on computers were your only topic and you were well known for them. I decide to get into the computer field too, but although I'm a big publisher in other fields I'm not a big publisher in the computer field. So bookstores won't carry my books, because yours are much more popular.
What do I do? First, I sell my books at cost. (IE = $0) That helps, but its not enough. So then I go to all the big chains and say, "Look, if you carry my computers books I'll pay you $10 million dollars to market the books." There's a catch though. They can't sell your books. That helps, $10 million dollars is a lot of money and they can't afford to let competing bookstores out spend them.
But some of the largest bookstores are still holding out and selling your books. Your books are hot sellers after all, and they can afford to budget another $10 million to compete with the other bookstores. So it's time to pull out the lethal weapon. No one buys any of my books unless they also exclusively sell my computer books. The last of the large bookstores find that they have to give in because without my other books, your books just aren't enough to continue making a profit. So they give into my demands.
What's more, people aren't buying your books anyways, because only really small shops are able to carry them anymore. So it's more important to sell my other books which people would go to other stores to buy, then sell yours, which aren't sold buy big book sellers.
Your sales dwindle from millions to a mere few hundred thousand. What's more, you no longer are able to pay writers and spend money on good publishing, so your books slide to a mere shadow of what they were.
However, any intelligent consumer can see that I didn't do any damage to you at all. After all, just compare the books in question.
Right?
Hopefully, in this imaginary scenario, you've been able to discern what was Netscape, and IE, and Windows. It shouldn't be too hard now.
-Brent--
Re:didn't you hear (Score:1)
OT: That isn't flamebait? (Score:1)
Excellent Idea (Score:1)
BSD counterculture (Score:2)
Re:No. (Score:3)
I run Linux. I also happen to have a really huge amount of affection in my heart for OpenBSD. One's my preference for desktops, one's my preference for servers. Am I a BSD supporter? Absolutely. Am I a Linux supporter? Absolutely.
So, who's this "we" you're referring to when you say "we hate the GPL"? I certainly don't hate it. It's a software license, not the end of the world. It doesn't virally infect your software; rather, the authors of GPLed software merely assert their rights as authors to keep you from using their software in non-GPLed software. Most authors who release their code under GPL do so for strong moral reasons. You might not like someone else's strong moral reasons, but I certainly hope you're mature enough to respect their reasons instead of hating their reasons.
Insofar as Linux being technically inferior to BSD, I really don't see how that's happening, either. The various BSDs are significantly lacking when it comes to hardware support; Linux tends to punch new drivers out like they're movie tickets. That doesn't make Linux more technically advanced; it just means they get drivers out faster. And BSD's faster TCP/IP stack doesn't mean that Linux's is inferior; it just means the BSD TCP/IP stack is faster.
A difference between two things does not always imply that one is superior and one is inferior.
Linux is an SVR4 clone. It has a poor development model.
A lot of really cool hacks were developed on SysV systems, friend. I'd suggest showing a little more respect for our AT&T brothers. Insofar as Linux's "poor development model" -- this one is so laughably false that I really can't refute it. Is it chaotic? Unquestionably. Haphazard? Not hardly. Chaotic systems coalesce and interact to create extremely complex, subtle effects. The Linux kernel is a good example. BSD has the planning and structure of a classical symphony; Linux has the general feel of a really good jazz quartet. Which one is better? Depends entirely on whether you prefer classical or jazz.
I'm a jazz man, myself.
BSD isn't fragmenting the UNIX community...
Agreed, wholeheartedly. Each flavor of BSD caters to a different segment of the community, and the richness of BSD flavors is one of the reasons why BSD is such an attractive choice. I don't like FreeBSD or NetBSD, but OpenBSD rocks my world.
Linux is.
Let me repeat my earlier question: what kind of crack are you on?
The real UNIX fragmentation problem is the absurd number of Linux distros, which, despite what some Linux folk say, have very significant differences.
Well, duh. OpenBSD and FreeBSD have very significant differences, too, but they have far more in common. Similarly, SuSE has significant differences from Debian, but I've never had problems installing SuSE packages on my Red Hat box and then installing a Debian package.
If you're going to claim that the fragmentation of BSDs doesn't fragment the UNIX community, then you've got to extend the same civility to the Linux community. Neither one is causing the fragmentation of UNIX. UNIX fragmented long, long before either BSD or Linux came out.
BSD was in widespread usage before Linux
... and MVS/TSO was in widespread usage before BSD. Older != better, newer != better.
I'm really getting sick of the Linux mentality that we need a gleaming, one world OS.
Find me a Linux user who believes this and I'll personally whack the idiot with a clue-by-four. The people who grok Linux know, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that Linux is not the Way, the Truth and the Life. Linux is an operating system, and a pretty damn good one. As soon as Linux stops fitting our needs, we'll toss it and make something that does.
And y'know what? BSD will do the exact same thing if BSD ever stops being useful.
Re:Pro BSD article? (Score:2)
C'mon, surely you could've found something which did a better job of promoting a *BSD than this article -- the guy was bordering on knowing nothing about it.
Heh, how'd you do that to the colors, anyway? They're making me hungry. :)
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
Re:Free BSD intelligent discourse (Score:1)
Now, I wouldn't want to have to wade through tons of these, but I do have to admit that it totally cracked me up. The fact that some people (not you) actually believe that they're serious posts, and the fact that I could actually see stuff like that getting published, just goes to show you the sorry direction that education has taken due to the prevailing liberal nepotism. Kinda reminds me of the classic Sokal's Experiment [virginia.edu].
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
Re:Nik, this is crap. (Score:1)
Not quite. (Score:1)
Re:BSD counterculture (Score:1)
That would explain these funky colors...
Linux vs. OpenBSD (Score:1)
I'm of the same attitude myself. I'm starting to prefer OpenBSD for things like firewalls, but I wouldn't want to use it as my desktop machine every day. Each has it's place... what it's best at.
Coming from the Linux viewpoint, it's not as if anything big is missing with OpenBSD, but the little things annoy me. Like having to manually install GNU ls (I'd die without --color :-), samba, etc. Yes, that stuff is in the ports tree, but it takes more effort to install and configure.
Take printing for example. With OpenBSD by default, I get the lpd binary and not much more. I have to do the rest myself.
With RedHat Linux (even distributions a year or two old) I can pop up the ol' printtool, point, click, click, read the resulting printcap entry, and I'm done. It already comes with a decent print filter, ghostscript, mpage, the whole 9 yards. It's easy. I like it.
Yes, I know, I'm being lazy. I could read the printcap (5) man page, I could write or find my own print filter. I could, but I don't want to. Setting up printers is so mundane it should be easy and quick (less than 5 minutes).
There are some things that I do want to learn all the details of... where I pore over each line of code to make sure it's correct, like the firewall rules. I don't mind at all spending a couple hours on that.
I'm certainly very glad of the work Theo and the gang are doing, but that doesn't mean that OpenBSD is the be-all and end-all. Neither are any of the Linux distributions I've tried: RedHat (complete and easy to configure, but bloated) and Debian (better install configurations, but slower release schedule and I really don't like dselect). I'm glad they all exist so that I can pick what's right for the job.
This Reporter should be shot (Score:1)
But DR-DOS couldn't cut it, and disappeared from the market. Frankenberg believes DR-DOS was driven out by a ruthless Bill Gates.
Caldera released a lot of information a few monthes back regarding DR-DOS and the trial. Every version of DR-DOS had comperable or higher reviews than MS-DOS, and Microsoft refused to distribute Windows APIs to companies that worked with DR-DOS, and Microsoft deliberately put code in beta versions of Windows 3.1 so it behave erratically or crash with DR-DOS.
But hasn't Microsoft's monopoly power dwindled since the trail started? New competitors now are on the scene, including the Linux operating system.
AFAIK a company is considered a monopoly if it controls 80% or more of a market. MS controls somewhere in the mid-90 percent range. In other words, millions of people could switch to Linux tomorrow and MS would still enjoy monopoly power.
In your current company, Encanto, you don't use Microsoft's software. You're using a Linux-like software, right?
Ugh. Has linux really become so much of a cultural icon that all versions of UNIX and UNIX variants are assumed to be "Linux-like"? "Hey, you're using {MacOS,BeOS,GNOME,KDE,any windowed-gui interface}, that's Windows-like right?"
Why was it so tough for you to take on Microsoft? Did DR-DOS fail for the simple reason that Microsoft had better software?
With the possible exception of MS Office vs. Wordperfect Suite (where MS also used illegal bundling tactics), MS has never had _better_ software than any of it's competitors -- their products have always been marginally worse at best. DR-DOS was no exception -- it outperformed and outrated MS-DOS for years until MS tied Windows to DOS, and refused to deal with Novell while they owned DR-DOS.
In retrospect, isn't browser technology fairly insignificant? Would more browser competition change the technology market?
Yup, browsers sure are insignificant. URLs on billboards, _tons_ of ads on television for web pages -- I can't think of anything significant effect the _web_ or _web browsers_ have had on society or business. Whoops, actually internet (specificially the web) is changing everything! But I guess that's pretty insignificant. As for the second sentence.... Hey author, did you fail your fucking econ class in middle school? Ever heard of this little thing called market forces, or perhaps supply and demand?
-- rot13 my email address for the real thing
Colors (Score:1)
Re:Not quite. (Score:1)
Point taken. I'm just an average BSD user who started out with 386BSD quite a while ago, and moved primarily to Free. I didn't mean to assume the views BSD users and developers - I was just venting a bit and doing a little self-parody of myself and some of the BSD users I know.
I would like to have corporations develop for FreeBSD, and I regularly (politely) request that commercial developers consider a port - but until they port to Linux, I would guess that the chances of a Free port are slim, so, as you say, a Linux port is a good starting point.
And good point about the 'we need choices' bit. That was one thing that struck me from the original post, the implied 'let's all fight against microsoft, the common enemy' bit, but I wasn't sure exactly how to word it.
-lx
Re:No. (Score:1)
As far as self-promotion, though, I don't think a lot of BSD folks are real interested in advocacy, at least not to the degree that Linuxers are. I'm honestly not sure where I stand on the subject of advocacy - on the one hand, it (theoretically) expands the user base, and therefore the demand for applications, but I honestly have most everything I need in BSD, and I don't feel comfortable evangelising.
If I had to take a quick stab at what advantages I think BSD has over Linux, I would say:
1. The TCP/IP stack
2. The less restrictive license
3. The development model
4. The ports tree
5. and possibly the most important, a more sane administration system than svr4, e.g., the BSD
I don't really feel I'm qualified to explain deeply technical advantages, but as I say, there are a number of sources for such info, including Slashdot itself(although you'll have to do some heavy sifting
-lx
Re:Nik, this is crap. (Score:1)
AC wrote
Hey Nik, why didn't you post the cool OpenSSH article I submitted?
Do you mean this one [slashdot.org]?
N
Re:Colors (Score:2)
"We hope you find fun and laughter in the new millenium" - Top half of fastfood gamepiece
Re:No. (Score:1)
Who's this we? It ain't all "BSD lovers", I'm rather fond of BSD, and I don't hate the GPL. In fact FreeBSD, NetBSD, and (I think) OpenBSD all ship with some GPLed software. So does BSD/OS.
And BSD is technically inferior to Linux. BFD. BSD (in thery) has better seporation between chunks of the kernel. Linux has that cool slab allocator. BSD (now) has a soft-updating-FFS (similar speed to ext2fs, but without the danger), and is soon to get NetApp-like snapshots. Linux is getting XFS and/or RiserFS. (I don't mean to choose weaker examples for Linux here; I'm just more in touch with BSD stuff)
Surely one system or the other has more intresting bits of technology, but which bits are more interesting or important are more of an value judgement, and less an objectave fact.
Yes, it appears to be more or less. And I (mostly) like the BSD flavor better, but there isn't as much of a diffrence as in the old BSD4.2 vs. SysVR3 days. Both have reliable signals for instance. Since Linux has BSD style sockts and not TLI, I don't think there is any unlivable SysVism in it.
Bull.
As a long-time BSD user I'm in awe of Linux's devlopment model. Not the thery behind it. The actual results. Dammed impressave.
Oh bite me.
Neither Linux nor (the free) BSDs are doing much to split the Unix community. That's all comercial Unix bullshit product diferention. I'll grant that Linux has a bunch of somewhat incompatable distros (even if they are baised on diffrent versions of the same kernel, changing the useland that much makes for compatability issues). But it just isn't a big deal.
I'm not sure that is a Linux mentality. Sure a bunch of Linux fans seem to think it from time to time, but I don't think it is true of a large percentage of Linux users. I would bet most of them think more OSes are better then less.
Re:New Colours (off topic) (Score:1)
Actually american spellings are closer to Middle-English than UK ones: UK english spelling was affected by French around the 18th century.. so you US types can rejoice in the fact that you have the "correct" spellings